What are your thoughts on ''Incest''?

rTz said:
And as far as Hinduism goes, I'm pretty sure that I've read about Brahmins (what is the proper name?) forcing other people into arranged incestuous marriages in the past, though the pluralistic nature of Hinduism makes it difficult to make any assertions as to its nature. At any rate, religion should have no bearing on the subject in the first place.

Fui said:
Twincest is wincest?

The reason you don't find people you grew up around sexually attractive is because of the Westermarck effect, which is a type of imprinting developed over time to "prevent" having incestuous relationships since genetic diseases are much higher in offspring between siblings. The reason for this is because genetic diseases are usually recessive traits and require mutations at the same loci to take effect. The chance of this occurring is much higher in siblings since naturally they share 50% of the same genetic material.

The people fascinated by having imoutos and whatnot are probably either brainwashed by constant exposure to the stuff or actually don't have a sister/brother.

Sin said:


Source? I guarantee I know much more about Hinduism than you, and I've never heard of that sort of situation ever happening. Not to mention, even if it did that has nothing to do with Hinduism itself, but rather because of the now-abolished caste system.

Sohei said:


It's bound to have happened sometime in the previous 3000 years Brahmans existed as a caste in the Indian sub-continent, although it would obviously have to be before the caste system was abolished.

It wouldn't surprise me though, seeing that the Brahmans considered themselves an elite amongst peoples, leading of course to closer relations with those from the same caste. It also happened amongst the immigrated greeks during the Hellenistic period.

Sin said:


I should've made myself a little more clear: I've never heard of such a situation ever happening in recent history. I bet any and every sort of situation has happened over the past 3000 years just because it's over such a long time span. The point of my comment was, though, that this has no correlation to the religion itself.

BloodSlave said:
Incest is NOT WRONG is both the concerned parties are OLD enough to take a practical decision. The only bar is AGE... I LOVE my sister ...

rTz said:


Lol, attacking lolicon in one thread, and then defending incest in another?

inode said:
anyways I personally don't care people can do as they please (incest,homosexuality,heterosexuality,necrophilia,bestiality, etc.) its what they want, I don't agree with it but I can accept a person with that lifestyle

rTz said:


Lol, attacking lolicon in one thread, and then defending incest in another?

rTz said:


Lol, attacking lolicon in one thread, and then defending incest in another?

Sin said:
Eh, there's a fundamental difference between being a lolicon and the form of incest I would deem as acceptable: age. Being a lolicon is virtually synonymous with liking girls who are too young and immature to make such any sort of important/life-changing decision. Decisions to enter into an incestuous relationship, on the other hand, can potentially be made by two consenting, and fully able, adults.

khorven said:
Urban myth

It was never proven and the reverse has been proven with considerable gravity. It would after all be pretty absurd for man to be the only mammal to not be 'ready' for sex from the moment the reproductive organs become operation.

Sin said:

What are you talking about? What are you referring to as an urban myth? Being "ready" for sex is completely and utterly irrelevant when taking into consideration being "ready" for the consequences associated with this act.

Why is it "absurd" for man to be the only mammal to not be 'ready' for sex from the moment the reproductive organs become operative? Man has the gift of self-awareness, as well as greater intelligence than any animal, and along with that comes culture and conscientiousness. Animals don't have to worry about how their present sexual actions will influence them in terms of their culture and society, but humans DO. We're not animals (well we are, but at the same time completely different from any other animal). We don't have the freedom to fight people whenever we want, or kill other people over food. And we also do NOT have the freedom to hurt people younger than us or engage in sexual actions with someone who is much too young to understand how their current actions will affect them later on.

khorven said:
'being ready' for sex as a medical or psychological construct is a hoax. It doesn't exist, it's the same as your first slide down the slide at kindergarten. Sure, the first time is scary but after that you can't get enough of it. It's a hoax invented by the subconsciousness of parents that the concept of 'informed consent' or the lack thereof exists. Sex in reality is not such a big deal as people like to make of it. How could it be? It's our most primal urge? It's not nested in the frontal lobe or some shit, it's a limbic lower drive? There's nothing complex about sex.

khorven said:
The concept of 'informed concept' or the lack thereof was never scientifically backed up and the reverse has been shown countless times. The 'age of consent' is a hoax, children are 'ready' for sex when they seek it out, mostly with peers but if one of them seeks an adult out then let them.

You really think that it's going to affect you so drastically later on? I suggest you come with some studies to that then? As far as I know all clinical studies into the matter show that children who had sex on a young age show no significant clinical consequences from it and are not disadvantaged in society. Be that early sexual act with peers or adults. It's irrelevant.

Sex is not such a big deal as people often make it, it's a lower drive okay, it's a limbic drive, it's not some thing in your frontal lobe like ehh.. playing computer games. It's a bloody primal urge. The concept of 'informed consent' is a propaganda tool. It isn't scientifically defendable, the reverse is actually.

It's just the that manieth moral code in the west that 'children shouldn't have sex' and false theories are of course brought up to justify the irrationality of it to yourself. Just as people come up with nonsense that you get three arms if your mother is also your aunt or bullshit psychiatrists in the 1920's told kids that you grow to be weak later if you wank.

People are haste to come up with pseudoscientific rationales to justify moral codes, age of consent is not scientifically defendable. Same thing with video games being bad for kids et alia. Those 'numbers' lik '16' or '18' to it are just thought up at whim with no scientific basis to it. And that they differ in different cultures depending on how sexually liberal they are shows that it's not a scientific thing but a moral code which people try hastely for to find a justification.

rTz said:
I'm pretty sure he said that he was talking about underage people who are /seeking out sex/ (Iif you think that this doesn't happen, you'd be very mistaken), and who were already functioning in that respect (i.e. gone through puberty). This would imply both physical maturity and consent, though the social ramifications of a pregnant 14 year old still needs to be carefully considered (see my next paragraph for more information).

It is partially for this reason that I would support school nurses being allowed to distribute condoms, and allowing certain types of birth control to women (and in the future preferably men as well) without a prescription. Also, I would support better sex education (abstinence only programs don't work at all, we laughed off the 'sex ed' tapes that were like that, just like we did with DARE and the rest of the 'drug education' programs). The fact remains that there are definitely 14-15 year olds who are much more mature and intelligent than college bimbos who get knocked up by someone at a party; being mature enough to parent/consent is a relative thing, and education--not necessarily a strict age limit--is key.

Sin said:


LOLOL did you even read what I said? I never said anything about "being ready" for sex physiologically (which is what I would assume you meant by "medical") or psychologically. I was talking about the after effects as a result of our culture. How could an innocent child who hasn't reached puberty know anything about the social or physiological consequences associated with what happens AFTER sex? The fact is they don't. If you try to disagree with this, then you've only proved your own naivete on the subject, and I'm not going to bother talking with you about this any longer.

Children do not like to be sexually molested.

I fail to see anything even remotely similar to a "good point" in your entire essay. You reference how not having sex at an early age is a moral value imposed by the west, but that has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about. Lolicon implies the like of innocent/naive/PREPUBESCENT young girls. THEY DO NOT ENJOY HAVING SEX. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THE PHYSIOLOGICAL CAPACITY TO ENJOY IT.

Sin said:
We were talking about lolicons aka people 18 and older with people 12 and younger. I don't think there are "lolis" who can make responsible decisions in regards to sex, especially since the grand majority are prepubescent. If he was talking about something else, then he went off tangent.

The WHOLE point of what I was initially saying, was that I have nothing against two consenting adults who want to engage an incestuous relationship, but I DO have something against a lolicon, because there's no way a "loli" could possibly know what they were getting themselves into, given the intrinsic definition of what a loli is.

Sin said:
I'm sorry, regardless of how much you insist prepubescent children can experience sexual pleasure, I must insist that it's bullshit. You say it's a scientific fact? LOL, do you know what the definition of sexual pleasure and prepubescence are? They, intrinsically by their very definitions can't both be true; they're contradictory terms.

Please show one accredited study that has shown my previous paragraph to be "scientifically erroneous".

Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[27][28] and poor social skills.[29] Beginning in 2002, other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues, began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function: Pedophilic (and hebephilic) men have lower IQs,[3][30][31] poorer scores on memory tests,[30] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[3][30][32][33] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[34] lesser physical height,[35] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[36][37] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[38][39][40]

Sin said:
ough.

Sick_Bastard said:


What does being left-handed have to do with being a pedophile?

Sin said:
Thanks for the study? But ya I see. In any case, I stand by argument regarding how prepubescent children are far from psychologically prepared or ready for any sexual interaction, especially with adults. And this was my entire point to begin with. I commend you for being good at red herrings though.



I stand by this.

khorven said:
what do statistics of adult people that love children have to do with a child's ability to have informed consent?

Besides, ehhrr.. intelligence is bound to correlate with low self-esteem just as much. Geeks and nerds just ave very little of it. Chavs really get a stack overload on it.

And besides, you still seem to keep on going stating dogmatically from assertion that children are not 'ready' for it and I still want you to back it up. It's essentially nonsense namely, or at least they have no significant clinical disadvantages later on.

khorven said:
It's essentially nonsense namely, or at least they have no significant clinical disadvantages later on.

Sin said:


Oops, I mean to post this:

Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life.[9][22] Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression,[5][23][24] post-traumatic stress disorder,[6][25] anxiety,[7] eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis, chronic pain,[24] sexualized behavior,[26] school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse,[27][28] destructive behavior, criminality in adulthood and suicide.[11][29][30][31][32][33] A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified[34] and there are several hypotheses on the causality of these associations.[5][35][36]
A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.93 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused."[28]

Long term negative effects on development leading to re-victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse.[8][27] Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism.[37] Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services.[24] A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former.[38]

Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children.[31][39][40][41][42] The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used.[43] The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force.[9][22][44][45] The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children,[46][47] and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments.[48][49]



I guess most people disagree with you. And engaging in sexual activities with a prepubescent is most certainly child abuse.

Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which a child is abused for the sexual gratification of an adult or older adolescent.[1][2] In addition to direct sexual contact, child sexual abuse also occurs when an adult indecently exposes their genitalia to a child, asks or pressures a child to engage in sexual activities, displays pornography to a child, or uses a child to produce child pornography

khorven said:
Ehhh.. that's outright rape what that's talking about. Of course children are going to get effects from being raped. For all, adults have effects about being raped or simply violently treated. That's like saying 'children can't swim because if you force them underwater they don't like it.'

There's a difference between having sex and being raped, come one.

Halo_s_Maze said:
I have to agree with Sin. I intern in a facility for young children who are abused, and some of them have been "touched" before they were ready.

The damage done to them is no laughing matter they are harmed by the contact. Do you know how sickening it is to hear some of these kids say they didn't want to be touched, but it felt good so it must mean they wanted it after all.

The human body will respond to sexual contact whether it is wanted or not. That doesn't mean these children were ready for it.

Incest is whatever. Loli is a no no.

Sin said:


No it's not.

Child sexual abuse is a form of child abuse in which a child is abused for the sexual gratification of an adult or older adolescent.[1][2] In addition to direct sexual contact, child sexual abuse also occurs when an adult indecently exposes their genitalia to a child, asks or pressures a child to engage in sexual activities, displays pornography to a child, or uses a child to produce child pornography

Merely asking a child to engage in sexual activities is considered child abuse and can produce those symptoms, and as far as I know that's the only way to engage in that sort of act? Unless you just rip their pants off? And as far as I know you have to expose your genitalia to have sex?

khorven said:
Yeah, it says it right there. Child sexual abuse is a form of violent and pressured rape?

Of course that's going to be bad for children, that's bad for any human. I was never talking about rape.

I was talking about what some people call 'statuary rape', a situation where there is no form of physical or psychological pressure.

And did the thought ever come to your mind that children can, in fact, also ask? I mean, how can two twelve year olds have sex? One of them has to ask and that scenario is quite common in the Netherlands. To be twelve and lose your innocence to a peer.

enkil said:
as far as incest goes i would really just have sex with myself (if only i could)

Sin said:

Don't try to twist things. First of all, it says "ask OR rape" as in just asking is enough for it to be child abuse, pressure is only ONE example of how something could be child abuse, but merely asking is SUFFICIENT. Second of all, we were talking about the specific instance of being a lolicon, or someone older than 18 being with someone younger than 12.

There will never be a time when a 12 year old will ask someone older than 18 to engage in a sexual activity. That just doesn't happen

and if it does, that child already has many things wrong with him/her.

Neverender said:

no hands or what

khorven said:
,It does? In fact, I at that age was asked by two different children. And I know some more people. 10% of the Netherlands' 13 year old have lost their virginity, go figure.

Sin said:


Ok this just shows how full of bullshit/desperate you are. No matter how much you're proven wrong you come up with ridiculous/conspicuously desperate stories. And you have no clue what the strawman fallacy is. I love how people who have never taken any sort of public advocacy or argumentation course in their life attempt to debunk people with fallacies that are irrelevant...not to mention statistics and the straw man fallacy have no relation whatsoever LOL...

The strawman fallacy results from misrepresenting what your opponent in an argument says and you argue that "strawman" instead of the real argument. It has no context in our discussion, since I was quoting the DEFINITION of child abuse, and I clearly argued my point using a direct quote from the definition. You just can't accept you're wrong.

I'm done, you can't argue with someone when they're as desperate as you to be correct, because even if the truth is handed to them on a silver platter, they only care about "winning" the argument. The truth simply doesn't matter to them.

enkil said:
as far as incest goes i would really just have sex with myself (if only i could)

and as for inbreeding i would rather be asexual and just clone myself.

heh im amazed how much this page has shifted off the main topic.

Sin said:
or someone older than 18 being with someone younger than 12

rTz said:


Where did we decide that we were focusing on children younger than 12?

rTz said:


Where did we decide that we were focusing on children younger than 12?

Baman said:
Well, it seems every thread on MAL these day ends up with discussing paedophaeliae, even if it is a proper thread about something respectable like incest.

Esley said:

Lol dude, stop making up quotes, I've never posted it.